JAMALUDDIN Vs. SHIKSHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 16. 2. 2008 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act instituted by the landlady was allowed after contest.

(2.) THE landlady/owner of property no. 1885, Gali Kolian, Suiwalan, darya Ganj, Delhi alleged that the petitioner was in occupation of one room, covered dalan with common toilet on the first floor of the property. The landlady herself was in occupation of two rooms, one kitchen and open dalan on the first floor, one room on the second floor and one store on the barsati floor of the said building. The accommodation available to the landlady on the first floor was not sufficient for her family members and she wanted all her family to stay together at the first floor. The petitioner was in occupation of one room on the first floor and this room was surrounded by the rooms which were in occupation of the landlady and her family members. The landlady offered to the petitioner an equivalent accommodation either on the first floor itself or on the second floor so that the petitioner may shift to that room and the landlady with her family could live together in the accommodation available with them. The family of the landlady consisted of 08 family members however, during pendency of the case there were additions into the family and 05 more members got added into the family and by the time the application was decided by the additional Rent Controller the number of family members of the landlady were. The offer of the landlady to the petitioner/ tenant for shifting to another room either on the second floor or in another room at first floor was turned by the tenant not only before filing of petition but even during pendency of the eviction petition.

(3.) THE petitioner/tenant had raised several objections against the application. He challenged the ownership of the landlady despite the fact that after the death of her husband, who was initially the landlord/owner of the premises, the rent was being paid by the petitioner to the landlady and the property got mutated in the name of the landlady in the MCD record. The other ground taken by the petitioner was that the tenancy was not residential tenancy but it was the composite tenancy viz. residential and commercial. And the third ground taken by the petitioner was that during the pendency of the petition another room on the first floor was vacated by another tenant, which came into the occupation of the landlady and her family and the accommodation available with the landlady on the first floor itself was 07 rooms and the entire property consisted of 22 rooms and the landlady had been letting out rooms at the ground floors to the tenants.